The hollow rhetoric of Latin American unity

Political summits are an intricate business. Usually, they produce completely watered-down statements so bland that if read out loud, they’d put even the most engaged audience to sleep- or they are so removed from reality that they have a surreal ring to it. Some argue that the important stuff happens behind closed doors, when deals are struck and disputes are solved over a glass of fine scotch.  Yet, despite the potential fringe benefits, last week’s summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders in Mexico, where leaders of all colors pledged to unite under the newly formed Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac), proved to be yet another festival of collective self-delusion and hollow rhetoric so blatant that the only question the observer was left behind with was  “Who exactly are they trying to fool?” Integration of any kind in Latin America remains as improbable as ever, and yet another addition to the already absurd alphabet soup of regional bodies is unlikely to make a difference.

Talk of unity is insincere, and there are five main reasons why economic or political integration in Latin America will remain an illusion, and why attempts to replace the Organization of American States (OAS) with a newly formed body –which excludes the United States and Canada– is unlikely to help tackle the region’s problems.

First, the region’s governments’ ideological predispositions are too far apart to find a common denominator on any economic, let alone political, issues. Even human rights- an issue often used to create some kind of common ground– is off the table, as Fidel Castro and an increasingly dictatorial Hugo Chavez refuse to discuss a problem highlighted by the death of Orlando Zapata, Cuba’s foremost dissident and defender of human rights, after a hunger strike in prison. But even less emotional issues such as trade liberalization or monetary policy prove difficult as the region’s governments move into opposite directions. The Venezuelan government nationalizes and becomes more fragile, while Brazil, a beacon of monetary stability,  is boasting an economy ever more competitive in virtually all areas. A related problem is the triumph of populist ideology over pragmatism in a series of countries in the region. Blaming outsiders – a daily practice in Venezuela and a phenomenon ever more common in Argentina– is usually a reliable indicator that a government is unwilling or unable to face unwelcome realities. Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Colombia, on the other hand, have reached political maturity and a general policy consensus that allows governments to deal with challenges pragmatically. As a consequence, nations lack the mutual trust necessary to integrate and confer sovereignty to a supranational decision-making body. Mercosur’s lack to establish a permanent supranational entity to decide trade disputes between its members is a case in point.

Secondly, it is increasingly unclear whether the region’s giant, Brazil, is as interested in integration as it claims to be. While Itamaraty, the foreign ministry, is correct to point out that Latin America one of Brazil’s foreign policy priorities, few top policy makers seem inclined to make concessions to neighbors that are falling behind. High-flying Brazil, which is now usually commonly included into all high-profile platforms, has its eyes on a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and has long started to think in more global dimensions. Aside from Brazil’s diverging political ambitions, the lack of mutual economic necessity, an essential ingredient of integration, further reduces incentives to integrate. The EU works because its members depend on each other. Brazil, on the contrary, does not depend on its neighbors. Some analysts even claim that Mercosur’s customs union hurts Brazil’s economy, reducing its room for maneuver when signing trade deals with other big powers. In any case, Brazil is unwilling to bear become the paymaster of integration, a role Germany has played in Europe.

Third, contrary to the European Union, regional integration in South America is a top down initiative that has never enjoyed civil society’s support. There are very few pro-integration pressure groups. In some societies, nationalism is quite strong and there is a potential for resistance against giving up autonomy. Politicians are thus unlikely to
continuously exercise leadership in this matter and push for integration. Contrary to Europeans, who have witnessed the ugly consequences of nationalism and whose societies bear post-modernist characteristics, Latin American nations are, similar to the United States, cherish sovereignty. Despite cultural similarities, most Latin Americans would find it absurd to see a regional parliament in Quito or Caracas overrule a decision their national government has taken.

Fourth, the region’s other significant actor, Mexico, is so much aligned with North America that the term “Latin America” has become largely irrelevant. Felipe Calderón’s pro-Latin America rhetoric during the summit can be read as a meek attempt to restore Mexico’s influence in a region it has long abandoned and left to Brazilian and Venezuelan leadership. Mexico is unlikely to engage in any regional club that positions itself against the United States.

Finally, there are few pragmatic arguments for replacing the OAS with an organization that excludes the United States and Canada, including Cuba instead. In February, Obama rightly pointed out that after criticizing the United States for intervening excessively in the region, several governments are now criticizing the US for having abandoned the region. Heeding to anti-American ideology is unlikely to help deal with problems the Americas urgently need to solve, and despite its occasional arrogance, its inclusion it crucial. Drug-related violence is a case in point, as it involved both Latin and North America. Unless they both sit down together, solutions are likely to be half-baked. In additional, another serious body is unlikely to go down well politically. Most Latin American countries are falling behind with their annual OAS fees, and they are unlikely to agree to paying to finance yet another headquarters, staff and costly summits.

For the time being, Latin America’s leaders can be expected to continue to dream about fulfilling Bolivar’s dream of uniting Latin America. Latin Americans could barely care less. Few Brazilians know that Unasur, another regional body created last year, exists in the first place, and even fewer will know about the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. Strengthening the already existing OAS may be a smarter way to go forward.